Please consider endorsing a statement recently issued by The Advancement Project (a civil rights group) and other organizations, asking Congress for certain changes to NCLB that will help to shut down the School-to-Prison-Pipeline. NAACP and the Juvenile Defense Fund are among the co-authors of this statement.
The authors of the report are looking for organizational and individual endorsements by Jan. 11, 2011.
Here is the full link to the position paper.
http://www.advancementproject.org/sites/default/files/Federal%20Policy%20ESEA%20Reauthorization%20and%20the%20School-to-Prison%20Pipeline%20-%2012%2006%2010.pdf
See also the forwarded email from Advancement Project, as follows.
From the Advancement Project website:
"We are an innovative civil rights law, policy, and communications “action tank” that advances universal opportunity and a just democracy for those left behind in America. We believe that sustainable progress can be made when multiple tools—law, policy analysis, strategic communications, technology, and research— are coordinated with grassroots movements."
"Advancement Project was founded in 1999 in Los Angeles and Washington DC by veteran civil rights lawyers who were looking for new ways to dismantle structural barriers to inclusion, secure racial equity, and expand opportunity for all."
See this webpage for more information about the School-to-Prison Pipeline:
http://www.stopschoolstojails.org/content/issue. Notice the multiple tabs at the top of the webpage. All of the tabs pertain to this issue.
Thank you.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Advancement Project <stopschoolstojails@advancementproject.org>
Date: Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 2:28 PM
Subject: Federal Policy, ESEA Reauthorization, and the School-to-Prison Pipeline
To:
WASHINGTON, DC 1220 L Street, N.W. Suite 850 Washington, DC 20005 202.728.9557 202.728.9558 (fax)
ap@advancementproject.org http://www.advancementproject.org/
Dear friends,
Our six organizations – Advancement Project, Education Law Center – PA, FairTest, Forum for Education and Democracy, Juvenile Law Center, and NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. – have come together to write this position paper, Federal Policy, ESEA Reauthorization, and the School-to-Prison Pipeline. We request that your organization consider endorsing it, which you can do by forwarding your response to stopschoolstojails@advancementproject.org by January 31, 2011.
As explained in the position paper, our organizations view the expanding School–to-Prison Pipeline as an outgrowth of various factors over the past decade, including aspects of the federal No Child Left Behind Act (the current version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, or ESEA). This statement proposes improvements to that law as well as other modifications in federal policy. We will share the paper with members of Congress and the Administration early in 2011, as one important part of our advocacy efforts.
We expect to have many endorsers from the civil rights, education, and juvenile justice communities, and we hope that you will join us in showing our collective support for federal education policies that better address the causes and consequences of the School-to-Prison Pipeline.
Endorsement Instructions:
While all endorsements are welcome, we strongly prefer organizational endorsements. If you work for, volunteer for, or are otherwise involved with an organization that looks to affect these issues, please encourage the organization to endorse this letter. Whenever possible, please sign on as an organization instead of as an individual. Send us the name of the organization and the authorizing person.
Individual endorsements are also welcome. You may include your title (e.g., "Robert Schwarz, Attorney") and/or your affiliation (e.g., "Monty Neill, FairTest"). All individual endorsements will be listed under the following heading: "the following individuals are listed with their affiliations for identification purposes only."
Please send all endorsements to stopschoolstojails@advancementproject.org by January 31, 2011.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact any of us at the addresses below.
We hope that your organization can endorse the position paper, and we look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.
Thank you,
Jim Freeman, Advancement Project, jfreeman@advancementproject.org
Len Rieser, Education Law Center, lrieser@elc-pa.org
Monty Neill, FairTest, monty@fairtest.org
George Wood, Forum for Education and Democracy, george.wood@earthlink.net
Bob Schwartz, Juvenile Law Center, rschwartz@jlc.org
Matt Cregor, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., mcregor@naacpldf.org
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Legal analysis of TFA contract, submitted prior to Nov. 17 vote
Here is a letter I sent to the board two day's prior to the TFA vote. I received direct acknowledgement from one Director of an earlier version of the same letter, who indicated that she would ask the district lawyer (Noel Treat) to review, and would include in the Board's administrative record.
============================
from <joan@m---.org>
to michael.debell@seattleschools.org, ccschoolboard@seattleschools.org, nrtreat@seattleschools.org, jcerqui@seattleschools.org, et al.
date Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 1:34 PM
subject TFA contract: Please ask your legal dept. to review this analysis
Dear Directors,
Please include this and all email communications from me in your administrative record, pursuant to state law.
Pleae give this email message as much weight as had it been communicated to you via public testimony.
Whenever SPS hires a person to teach that does not meet the NCLB definition of "highly qualified teacher," SPS is violating NCLB, and is putting its Title 1 funding in jeopardy.
This is my third, and most succinct, presentation of the legal arguments that attempt to establish unequivocally that TFA recruits do not meet the NCLB definition of "highly qualified teachers."
The attached file is revised, now has an index, and is better formatted for readability. The attached file contains quotations of all applicable state laws and regulations (from WAC) such as I was able to find.
Please send this to your legal department for review and response.
For your convenience and the convenience of your lawyers, I have attached a pdf of the Ninth Circuit Court ruling (Renee v. Duncant, Sept. 27, 2010).
I hope that your lawyers will provide a clear, cogent, legally sound response to this argument via oral comment at Wednesday's public legislative session of the School Board, and via written response.
Please send me any written response that you receive from your legal department.
Respectfully,
J--------
206 3-- 7---
Background
SPS lawyers have analyzed whether the Ninth Circuit Court ruling in Renee v. Duncan is applicable to the proposed contract betwen SPS and TFA; a district lawyer reported orally to the Board at the most recent public legislative session that the Ninth Circuit ruling is not applicable.
Based on a careful analysis of the court ruling, state law, and state administrative code, I find that your lawyers have very likely erred. As you will see from my analysis below, the question on whether NCLB allows SPS to hire TFA recruits hinges on what is this state''s definition of "full state certification."
The Ninth Circuit Court decision, issued Sept. 27, 2010, in Renee et al., v. Arne Duncan establishes the following.
1. In its legislation known as NCLB, Congress clearly defined "highly qualified teachers" (HQT) as "teachers possessing full state certification."
2. "Making progress toward acquiring full state certification" does NOT meet NCLB's definition of HQT.
3. "Full State certification" is not defined in NCLB.
4. The Court is not concerned with defining the meaning of the term "full certification;" rather,
5. the Court views the task of defining "full certification" as one that is held by each state.
6. To know whether a teacher of record meets the NCLB definition of HQT, one must first establish precisely how the state statutes and regulations define "full certification." If a teacher of record does not already possess full certification as so defined, then the teacher of record does NOT meet NCLB's definition of "highly qualified teacher."
Critical Questions.
Thus, the application of this decision to Washington State and to the question of whether TFA recruits can legally teach in Title 1 districts in Washington state, and in particular, to the question of whether TFA recruits can teach in high poverty schools in SPS, necessitates that the following questions be answered correctly:
Q1. What is the State of Washington definition of a fully certified teacher?
Q2. Does a TFA recruit possess "full state certification" in Washington at the start of his or her two-year mentored teaching internship commitment in a Washington school?
To recap, it is clear that in order to know if TFA recruits meet the NCLB defintion of "HQT," it is important to develop a clear understanding of what is Washington State's statutory definition of "full certification."
Answers to Critical Questions.
Q1. What is the State of Washington defintition of a fully certified teacher?
A1. The State of Washington definition of "fully certified teacher" includes "teacher certificate," "residency teacher certificate," and "professional teacher certificate."
(1) We assert that the term "teacher certificate' used in WAC 181-79A-140 corresponds to the term "full state certification" in NCLB.
(2) We assert that the term "residency teacher certification" used in RCW28A.660.040 and WAC 181-79A-145, and the term "teacher certificate" used in WAC 181-79A140(1) correspond to the term "full state certification" in NCLB. Under WAC 181-79A-145, "residency" and "professional" are two levels of teacher certificates. The initial teacher certificate is always a "residency" certificate. The "professional" level certificate requires National Board certification.
(3) We note that RCW 28A.410.025 specifies that "No person shall be accounted as a qualified teacher within the meaning of the school law who is not the holder of a valid teacher's certificate or permit issued by lawful authority of this state."
Q2. Does a TFA recruit who is seeking certification through an alternative route (RCW 28A.660.440) possess "full state certification" in Washington at the start of his or her two year mentored internship teaching commitment in a Washington school?
A2. The answer is multi-part.
(a) Enrollment[ees] in an alternative certification pathway (RCW28A.660.040) are not eligible to apply for a (full) teaching certificate until AFTER the prepartaion program is completed. Thus enrollees do not, simply as a result of being enrolled, possess "full state certification."
1. The alternative route to certification leads toward full state certification, since it is a recognized route of preparation for a "residency teaching certification," RCW28A.660.040.
2. State law RCW28A.660.040 makes clear that participants in an alternative certification route of teacher preparation are teaching as "mentored interns," and are not eligible for "residency teaching certification" (i.e.,the first level of full state certification) until after they complete the alternatiive pathway program requirements.
In short, a person who is enrolled in but has not completed an alternative certification program does not under state law and regulation possess a regular teaching certificate.
"Alternative route programs under this chapter shall operate one to four specific route programs. Successful completion of the program shall make a candidate eligible for residency teacher certification." RCW 28A.660.040.
3. WAC 181-79A-150(4) stipulates that
"Applicants for certification as teachers....except as otherwise provided in WAC 181-79A-257, and 181-79A-231, and in chapter 181-77 WAC...shall have completed a state approved college/university preparation program in the professional field for which certification is to be issued."
Notes. It appears that this rule has not yet been updated to reflect the statutory adoption of alternative certification pathways, as provided in RCW 28A.660.040. Nevertheless, this rule makes clear that a preparation program must be COMPLETED before a person is eligible to apply for certification as a teacher. This code is referring to regular, rather than limited, certification. The limited certificate is defined in WAC 181-79A-231, and is distinguised from a "teacher certificate" in WAC 181-79A-140. Exceptions to the requirement that the preparation program must have already have been completed in order for person to apply for a certification as a teacher (i.e., WAC 181-79A-257, 181-79A-231, 181-77) are not applicable to the present question.
4. RCW 28A.410.025 specifies that "No person shall be accounted as a qualified teacher within the meaning of the school law who is not the holder of a valid teacher's certificate or permit issued by lawful authority of this state."
(b) Holders of conditional certificates.
1. A conditional certificate is one of eight types of "limited certificates." 181-79A-231. 181-79A-231 includes detailed explanations of the qualifications for and purposes of limited certificates, and the conditions under which persons holding these certificates may serve as a teacher of record or a substitute teacher. Of these eight types of limited certificates, and due to Seattle Public Schools having no shortage of qualified applicants for certified teaching jobs, the only type that is is potentially applicable to enrollees of an alternative certification program (under RCW 28A.660.040) within Seattle Public Schools is the Conditional Certificate.
2. WAC 181-82-105, subsection (9) provides that a person with any type of limited certificate can serve as a teacher, within the limitations set for each of those types of limited certificates. "Any certificated person holding a limited certificate as specified in WAC 181-79A-230** ....may be assigned as per the provisions of such section or chapter."
**181-79A-230 no longer exists, and evidently has been supplanted by 181-79A-231 Limited Certificates.
3. From WAC 181-82-105, we must understand that a person that does not hold a teaching certificate or a limited certificate is not permitted to teach as a regular or substitute teacher in Washington State. This means that a person who is enrolled in an alternativie certification pathway is not eligible to teach in schools in Washington state unless that person holds at limited certificate.
5. It is possible that, prior to begining the mentored teaching internship of the alternative route to certification pathay #3 or #4, some TFA interns will be issued conditional certification under WAC 181-79A-231 (1)(b)(i), From WAC 181-79A-231 and WAC 181-82-105 subsection (9) we know that a TFA recruit possessing a conditional certificate is eligible under Washington state laws and regulations to serve as a teacher of record.
6. It does not necessarily follow that a TFA recruit holding a conditional certificate meets the NCLB definition of "Highly Qualified Teacher."
7. Under WAC, a conditional certificate is one of eight types of "limited" certificates, and is.distinct from the certificates that correspond to full state certification; thus holding a conditional certificate does confer to status of "highly qualified teacher" as defined in NCLB.
i. Conditional certification is defined in the administrative code [WAC 181-79A-140 (6), WAC 181-79A-231(1)], but not in state law.
ii. The administrative code makes clear that a conditional certificate is distinct from a "teaching certificate." WAC 181-79A-140(1),(6). A conditional certificate is identified by WAC 181-79A-140(6) as one of several types of "limited" certificates. Because "conditional certificate" is in Washingon regulations distinct from, and more limited than, a "teaching certificate," (the latter term we assert does qualify as full state certification) a conditional certificate does not make the bearer highly qualifed under NCLB.
iii. Clauses (1)- (4) of of WAC 181-82-105 refer to standard continuing, unendorsed continuing, initial, residency, endorsed continuing, and professional teacher certificates. Clause (9) specifically mentions "certificated person holding a limited certificate." Thus WAC 181-82-105 makes a distinction between holders of limited certificates, and holders of the types of certificates mentioned in clauses (1)-(4) of WAC 181-82-105. We assert that all the certificates listed in clauses (1)-(4) of WAC 181-82-105 are "levels" of full state certification, whereas the differentiated limited conditional certificate is not in this category. WAC 181-79A-145 lists the "levels" of teacher certificates. Conditional certificates is not included in this list.
iv. The very fact of the adjective "limited" being attached to "conditional certificates," is indicative that a conditional certificate is not a "full" certificate within Washington state laws and regulations. WAC 181-79A-231
v. WAC 181-79A-231 says that limited certificates "shall be issued under specific circumstances set forth below for limited service." Clearly, this phrase alone indicates that a limited certificate in general (and therefore also conditional certificates) are not equivalent to "full state certification."
vi. The following sentence from WAC 181-79A-231, when read in context, provides yet another clear indication that limited certificates (and therefore conditional certificates) are distinct from full certificates: "The professional educator standards board encourages in all cases the hiring of fully certificated individuals and understands that districts will employ individuals with conditional certificates only after careful review of all other options.
(c) Enrollees in a Route 3 alternative certification pathway program who lack any type or level of teacher certification from the state.
1. From RCW 28A.660, it seems that it is the intent of the legislature that, once a teacher mentor has decided that the person is competent to do so, an individual enrolled in such program is to be allowed to serve as a teacher of record, despite not having yet earned or not having yet been issued a limited or full teaching certificate.
2. WAC 181-82-105 says that a person must hold at least a limited certificate to teach in a school. This regulation appears to be in conflict with the intent of RCW28A.660.
3. Even if the administrated code is brought into alignment with RCW 28A.660, this still does not solve the problem that a person who lacks full state certification does not meet NCLB's definition of a "highly qualified teacher."
Closing Comment.
It is not illegal for SPS to hire TFA recruits, provided that the recruits posses at least a limited conditional teaching certificate. This is permitted under state law. Federal also does not prohibit this. Federal law does provide however, that the U.S. Secretary of Education may withhold Title 1 grants from eligible districts that do not have all of its teachers meeting the NCLB definition of "highly qualified." See Renee v. Duncan 2010 or ESEA Sec 1119 (a) (3).
Respectfully,
J----------
============================
from <joan@m---.org>
to michael.debell@seattleschools.org, ccschoolboard@seattleschools.org, nrtreat@seattleschools.org, jcerqui@seattleschools.org, et al.
date Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 1:34 PM
subject TFA contract: Please ask your legal dept. to review this analysis
Dear Directors,
Please include this and all email communications from me in your administrative record, pursuant to state law.
Pleae give this email message as much weight as had it been communicated to you via public testimony.
Whenever SPS hires a person to teach that does not meet the NCLB definition of "highly qualified teacher," SPS is violating NCLB, and is putting its Title 1 funding in jeopardy.
This is my third, and most succinct, presentation of the legal arguments that attempt to establish unequivocally that TFA recruits do not meet the NCLB definition of "highly qualified teachers."
The attached file is revised, now has an index, and is better formatted for readability. The attached file contains quotations of all applicable state laws and regulations (from WAC) such as I was able to find.
Please send this to your legal department for review and response.
For your convenience and the convenience of your lawyers, I have attached a pdf of the Ninth Circuit Court ruling (Renee v. Duncant, Sept. 27, 2010).
I hope that your lawyers will provide a clear, cogent, legally sound response to this argument via oral comment at Wednesday's public legislative session of the School Board, and via written response.
Please send me any written response that you receive from your legal department.
Respectfully,
J--------
206 3-- 7---
Background
SPS lawyers have analyzed whether the Ninth Circuit Court ruling in Renee v. Duncan is applicable to the proposed contract betwen SPS and TFA; a district lawyer reported orally to the Board at the most recent public legislative session that the Ninth Circuit ruling is not applicable.
Based on a careful analysis of the court ruling, state law, and state administrative code, I find that your lawyers have very likely erred. As you will see from my analysis below, the question on whether NCLB allows SPS to hire TFA recruits hinges on what is this state''s definition of "full state certification."
The Ninth Circuit Court decision, issued Sept. 27, 2010, in Renee et al., v. Arne Duncan establishes the following.
1. In its legislation known as NCLB, Congress clearly defined "highly qualified teachers" (HQT) as "teachers possessing full state certification."
2. "Making progress toward acquiring full state certification" does NOT meet NCLB's definition of HQT.
3. "Full State certification" is not defined in NCLB.
4. The Court is not concerned with defining the meaning of the term "full certification;" rather,
5. the Court views the task of defining "full certification" as one that is held by each state.
6. To know whether a teacher of record meets the NCLB definition of HQT, one must first establish precisely how the state statutes and regulations define "full certification." If a teacher of record does not already possess full certification as so defined, then the teacher of record does NOT meet NCLB's definition of "highly qualified teacher."
Critical Questions.
Thus, the application of this decision to Washington State and to the question of whether TFA recruits can legally teach in Title 1 districts in Washington state, and in particular, to the question of whether TFA recruits can teach in high poverty schools in SPS, necessitates that the following questions be answered correctly:
Q1. What is the State of Washington definition of a fully certified teacher?
Q2. Does a TFA recruit possess "full state certification" in Washington at the start of his or her two-year mentored teaching internship commitment in a Washington school?
To recap, it is clear that in order to know if TFA recruits meet the NCLB defintion of "HQT," it is important to develop a clear understanding of what is Washington State's statutory definition of "full certification."
Answers to Critical Questions.
Q1. What is the State of Washington defintition of a fully certified teacher?
A1. The State of Washington definition of "fully certified teacher" includes "teacher certificate," "residency teacher certificate," and "professional teacher certificate."
(1) We assert that the term "teacher certificate' used in WAC 181-79A-140 corresponds to the term "full state certification" in NCLB.
(2) We assert that the term "residency teacher certification" used in RCW28A.660.040 and WAC 181-79A-145, and the term "teacher certificate" used in WAC 181-79A140(1) correspond to the term "full state certification" in NCLB. Under WAC 181-79A-145, "residency" and "professional" are two levels of teacher certificates. The initial teacher certificate is always a "residency" certificate. The "professional" level certificate requires National Board certification.
(3) We note that RCW 28A.410.025 specifies that "No person shall be accounted as a qualified teacher within the meaning of the school law who is not the holder of a valid teacher's certificate or permit issued by lawful authority of this state."
Q2. Does a TFA recruit who is seeking certification through an alternative route (RCW 28A.660.440) possess "full state certification" in Washington at the start of his or her two year mentored internship teaching commitment in a Washington school?
A2. The answer is multi-part.
(a) Enroll
1. The alternative route to certification leads toward full state certification, since it is a recognized route of preparation for a "residency teaching certification," RCW28A.660.040.
2. State law RCW28A.660.040 makes clear that participants in an alternative certification route of teacher preparation are teaching as "mentored interns," and are not eligible for "residency teaching certification" (i.e.,the first level of full state certification) until after they complete the alternatiive pathway program requirements.
In short, a person who is enrolled in but has not completed an alternative certification program does not under state law and regulation possess a regular teaching certificate.
"Alternative route programs under this chapter shall operate one to four specific route programs. Successful completion of the program shall make a candidate eligible for residency teacher certification." RCW 28A.660.040.
3. WAC 181-79A-150(4) stipulates that
"Applicants for certification as teachers....except as otherwise provided in WAC 181-79A-257, and 181-79A-231, and in chapter 181-77 WAC...shall have completed a state approved college/university preparation program in the professional field for which certification is to be issued."
Notes. It appears that this rule has not yet been updated to reflect the statutory adoption of alternative certification pathways, as provided in RCW 28A.660.040. Nevertheless, this rule makes clear that a preparation program must be COMPLETED before a person is eligible to apply for certification as a teacher. This code is referring to regular, rather than limited, certification. The limited certificate is defined in WAC 181-79A-231, and is distinguised from a "teacher certificate" in WAC 181-79A-140. Exceptions to the requirement that the preparation program must have already have been completed in order for person to apply for a certification as a teacher (i.e., WAC 181-79A-257, 181-79A-231, 181-77) are not applicable to the present question.
4. RCW 28A.410.025 specifies that "No person shall be accounted as a qualified teacher within the meaning of the school law who is not the holder of a valid teacher's certificate or permit issued by lawful authority of this state."
(b) Holders of conditional certificates.
1. A conditional certificate is one of eight types of "limited certificates." 181-79A-231. 181-79A-231 includes detailed explanations of the qualifications for and purposes of limited certificates, and the conditions under which persons holding these certificates may serve as a teacher of record or a substitute teacher. Of these eight types of limited certificates, and due to Seattle Public Schools having no shortage of qualified applicants for certified teaching jobs, the only type that is is potentially applicable to enrollees of an alternative certification program (under RCW 28A.660.040) within Seattle Public Schools is the Conditional Certificate.
2. WAC 181-82-105, subsection (9) provides that a person with any type of limited certificate can serve as a teacher, within the limitations set for each of those types of limited certificates. "Any certificated person holding a limited certificate as specified in WAC 181-79A-230** ....may be assigned as per the provisions of such section or chapter."
**181-79A-230 no longer exists, and evidently has been supplanted by 181-79A-231 Limited Certificates.
3. From WAC 181-82-105, we must understand that a person that does not hold a teaching certificate or a limited certificate is not permitted to teach as a regular or substitute teacher in Washington State. This means that a person who is enrolled in an alternativie certification pathway is not eligible to teach in schools in Washington state unless that person holds at limited certificate.
5. It is possible that, prior to begining the mentored teaching internship of the alternative route to certification pathay #3 or #4, some TFA interns will be issued conditional certification under WAC 181-79A-231 (1)(b)(i), From WAC 181-79A-231 and WAC 181-82-105 subsection (9) we know that a TFA recruit possessing a conditional certificate is eligible under Washington state laws and regulations to serve as a teacher of record.
6. It does not necessarily follow that a TFA recruit holding a conditional certificate meets the NCLB definition of "Highly Qualified Teacher."
7. Under WAC, a conditional certificate is one of eight types of "limited" certificates, and is.distinct from the certificates that correspond to full state certification; thus holding a conditional certificate does confer to status of "highly qualified teacher" as defined in NCLB.
i. Conditional certification is defined in the administrative code [WAC 181-79A-140 (6), WAC 181-79A-231(1)], but not in state law.
ii. The administrative code makes clear that a conditional certificate is distinct from a "teaching certificate." WAC 181-79A-140(1),(6). A conditional certificate is identified by WAC 181-79A-140(6) as one of several types of "limited" certificates. Because "conditional certificate" is in Washingon regulations distinct from, and more limited than, a "teaching certificate," (the latter term we assert does qualify as full state certification) a conditional certificate does not make the bearer highly qualifed under NCLB.
iii. Clauses (1)- (4) of of WAC 181-82-105 refer to standard continuing, unendorsed continuing, initial, residency, endorsed continuing, and professional teacher certificates. Clause (9) specifically mentions "certificated person holding a limited certificate." Thus WAC 181-82-105 makes a distinction between holders of limited certificates, and holders of the types of certificates mentioned in clauses (1)-(4) of WAC 181-82-105. We assert that all the certificates listed in clauses (1)-(4) of WAC 181-82-105 are "levels" of full state certification, whereas the differentiated limited conditional certificate is not in this category. WAC 181-79A-145 lists the "levels" of teacher certificates. Conditional certificates is not included in this list.
iv. The very fact of the adjective "limited" being attached to "conditional certificates," is indicative that a conditional certificate is not a "full" certificate within Washington state laws and regulations. WAC 181-79A-231
v. WAC 181-79A-231 says that limited certificates "shall be issued under specific circumstances set forth below for limited service." Clearly, this phrase alone indicates that a limited certificate in general (and therefore also conditional certificates) are not equivalent to "full state certification."
vi. The following sentence from WAC 181-79A-231, when read in context, provides yet another clear indication that limited certificates (and therefore conditional certificates) are distinct from full certificates: "The professional educator standards board encourages in all cases the hiring of fully certificated individuals and understands that districts will employ individuals with conditional certificates only after careful review of all other options.
(c) Enrollees in a Route 3 alternative certification pathway program who lack any type or level of teacher certification from the state.
1. From RCW 28A.660, it seems that it is the intent of the legislature that, once a teacher mentor has decided that the person is competent to do so, an individual enrolled in such program is to be allowed to serve as a teacher of record, despite not having yet earned or not having yet been issued a limited or full teaching certificate.
2. WAC 181-82-105 says that a person must hold at least a limited certificate to teach in a school. This regulation appears to be in conflict with the intent of RCW28A.660.
3. Even if the administrated code is brought into alignment with RCW 28A.660, this still does not solve the problem that a person who lacks full state certification does not meet NCLB's definition of a "highly qualified teacher."
Closing Comment.
It is not illegal for SPS to hire TFA recruits, provided that the recruits posses at least a limited conditional teaching certificate. This is permitted under state law. Federal also does not prohibit this. Federal law does provide however, that the U.S. Secretary of Education may withhold Title 1 grants from eligible districts that do not have all of its teachers meeting the NCLB definition of "highly qualified." See Renee v. Duncan 2010 or ESEA Sec 1119 (a) (3).
Respectfully,
J----------
In the TFA vote, six Directors provide strong rationale for recall
Last night, six Directors of Seattle Public Schools voted to approve a proposed contract with TFA
It appears that in last night's vote on the TFA contract, six directors have knowingly and intentionally decided to make a decision that violates state law RCW 28A.320.015 and the federal law known as No Child Left Behind (i.e., the 2002 re-enactment of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act).
Under state law, this is cause for a recall petition.
Explication of the above assertion.
Due to legal analyses provided by [two non-lawyer parents], the Directors were well-informed prior to their vote that the proposed contract is in all likelihood in violation of the NCLB.
Note that Subsection 2 of RCW 28A.320.015 provides the following:
"The board of directors shall provide a reasonable opportunity for public written and oral comment and consideration of the comment by the board of directors."
If a court would interpret a Board's decision to approve a contract as being covered by Subsection 2 of RCW 28A.320.015, and considering that Ms. Sias sent her first legal analysis to the board on it is reasonable to presume, for the sake of arguments in a court of law, that the director's had indeed read, understood, and taken into consideration that analysis.
Here is a list of the emails that I sent to the Directors, and which contained legal analysis and/or attempted to make clear to Directors that the contract violated federal law, and would put Title 1 funding in jeopardy. The dates of these emails, and the content, shows clearly the Directors received the advisory and analysis soon enough to give it due consideration.
1. From: joan@m---t.org Date: Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 12:31 AM Subject: Applicability of Renee v. Duncan to SPS To: "DeBell, Michael" <michael.debell@seattleschools.org>, schoolboard@seattleschools.org Attachment: RCW & WAC on teacher cert.rtf (application/rtf) 61.00K
2. From: joan@m---t.org Date: Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 1:19 AM Subject: Putting Title 1 funding in jeopardy To: "DeBell, Michael" michael.debell@seattleschools.org
3. from <joan@m---.org> Date: Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 1:34 PM Subject: TFA contract: Please ask your legal dept. to review this analysis To: "DeBell, Michael" <michael.debell@seattleschools.org> cc: schoolboard@seattleschools.org, nrtreat@seattleschools.org, jcerqui@seattleschools.org,
In the third email, I indicated that this was my third and most succinct attempt to outline the legal arguments against the contract. I asked the board to include the email in the board's administrative record, and I asked the Board to have the legal department review my analysis.
I note that as per my request, Director Smith-Blum asked Board secretary Joan Dingfield to see that the 2nd email listed above is included in the adminstrative record for the Board. That means that this email must have formed part of the Board's transcript of evidence for the TFA contract decisions
In reference to the first email listed above, I received an email at 7:45 am on the morning of the vote with this message.: "Thanks Joan, have asked Noel Treat to address. ksb" Noel Treat is a lawyer employed by the District.
As I understand, a district lawyer made three arguments orally before the Board at last night's legislative session.
1. Even if Ms. --- and Ms. ---- are correct, and the contract is therefore in violation of NCLB (due to TFA recruit's not meeting the NCLB's definition of "highly qualified teacher"), it is unlikely that the U.S. Secretary of Education would withhold Title 1 funding for such violation;
2. The U.S. Secretary of Education is expected to appeal the Ninth Circuit Court decision (Renee v. Duncan); if the appeal succeeds, then Ms. ---'s and M. -'s argument that the limited conditional certificate is not a "full state certification" becomes moot, in which case the contract will no longer be in violation of the court's interpretation of Federal Law.
3. The lawyer disagrees in the first place with Ms. --'s' and Ms. ---'s assertion that a Limited Conditional (teaching) Certificate (such as would likely be issued to all TFA recruits) does not meet the state's definition of "fuill state certification."
Given the strength of Ms. ---'s' legal analysis in particular, on the question of whether under state law a limited conditional certificate amounts to full state certification, and the weakness of the District lawyer's counter-argument, we can dismiss the third argument.
We have a situation in which six public officials have knowingly and intentionally decided to make a scoff-law decision.
State law RCW 28A.320.015 is applicable to this situation. (This law is quoted in full below.)
RCW 28A.320.015 says, in effect, that the Board must NOT write policy and exercise their power in a way that conflicts with law.
It appears that in last night's vote on the TFA contract, six public officials have knowingly and intentionally decided to make a decisions that violates state law RCW 28A.320.015. Such behavior is ground for recall. RCW 29A.56.110. [quoted below]
Case law has established that a recall petition lacks legal sufficiency if a public official who violated a state law did so without knowledge and intent. This last-resort basis for dismissing a recall petition will not hold in the present situation for the six directors who voted in favor of the TFA contract.
Quotations of cited state law.
RCW 28A.320.015 School boards of directors — Powers — Notice of adoption of policy.
A. Pertinent Clauses
(1) The board of directors of each school district may exercise the following:
(a) The broad discretionary power to determine and adopt written policies not in conflict with other law ....
(b) Such powers as are expressly authorized by law; and
(c) Such powers as are necessarily or fairly implied in the powers expressly authorized by law.
B. Full Quotation
(1) The board of directors of each school district may exercise the following:
(a) The broad discretionary power to determine and adopt written policies not in conflict with other law that provide for the development and implementation of programs, activities, services, or practices that the board determines will:
(i) Promote the education and daily physical activity of kindergarten through twelfth grade students in the public schools; or
(ii) Promote the effective, efficient, or safe management and operation of the school district;
(b) Such powers as are expressly authorized by law; and
(c) Such powers as are necessarily or fairly implied in the powers expressly authorized by law.
(2) Before adopting a policy under subsection (1)(a) of this section, the school district board of directors shall comply with the notice requirements of the open public meetings act, chapter 42.30 RCW, and shall in addition include in that notice a statement that sets forth or reasonably describes the proposed policy. The board of directors shall provide a reasonable opportunity for public written and oral comment and consideration of the comment by the board of directors.
RCW 29A.56.110 Initiating proceedings — Statement — Contents — Verification — Definitions.
Whenever any legal voter of the state or of any political subdivision thereof, either individually or on behalf of an organization, desires to demand the recall and discharge of any elective public officer of the state or of such political subdivision, as the case may be, under the provisions of sections 33 and 34 of Article 1 of the Constitution, the voter shall prepare a typewritten charge, reciting that such officer, naming him or her and giving the title of the office, has committed an act or acts of malfeasance, or an act or acts of misfeasance while in office, or has violated the oath of office, or has been guilty of any two or more of the acts specified in the Constitution as grounds for recall. The charge shall state the act or acts complained of in concise language, give a detailed description including the approximate date, location, and nature of each act complained of, be signed by the person or persons making the charge, give their respective post office addresses, and be verified under oath that the person or persons believe the charge or charges to be true and have knowledge of the alleged facts upon which the stated grounds for recall are based.
For the purposes of this chapter:
(1) "Misfeasance" or "malfeasance" in office means any wrongful conduct that affects, interrupts, or interferes with the performance of official duty;
(a) Additionally, "misfeasance" in office means the performance of a duty in an improper manner; and
(b) Additionally, "malfeasance" in office means the commission of an unlawful act;
(2) "Violation of the oath of office" means the neglect or knowing failure by an elective public officer to perform faithfully a duty imposed by law.
It appears that in last night's vote on the TFA contract, six directors have knowingly and intentionally decided to make a decision that violates state law RCW 28A.320.015 and the federal law known as No Child Left Behind (i.e., the 2002 re-enactment of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act).
Under state law, this is cause for a recall petition.
Explication of the above assertion.
Due to legal analyses provided by [two non-lawyer parents], the Directors were well-informed prior to their vote that the proposed contract is in all likelihood in violation of the NCLB.
Note that Subsection 2 of RCW 28A.320.015 provides the following:
"The board of directors shall provide a reasonable opportunity for public written and oral comment and consideration of the comment by the board of directors."
If a court would interpret a Board's decision to approve a contract as being covered by Subsection 2 of RCW 28A.320.015, and considering that Ms. Sias sent her first legal analysis to the board on it is reasonable to presume, for the sake of arguments in a court of law, that the director's had indeed read, understood, and taken into consideration that analysis.
Here is a list of the emails that I sent to the Directors, and which contained legal analysis and/or attempted to make clear to Directors that the contract violated federal law, and would put Title 1 funding in jeopardy. The dates of these emails, and the content, shows clearly the Directors received the advisory and analysis soon enough to give it due consideration.
1. From: joan@m---t.org Date: Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 12:31 AM Subject: Applicability of Renee v. Duncan to SPS To: "DeBell, Michael" <michael.debell@seattleschools.org>, schoolboard@seattleschools.org Attachment: RCW & WAC on teacher cert.rtf (application/rtf) 61.00K
2. From: joan@m---t.org Date: Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 1:19 AM Subject: Putting Title 1 funding in jeopardy To: "DeBell, Michael" michael.debell@seattleschools.org
3. from <joan@m---.org> Date: Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 1:34 PM Subject: TFA contract: Please ask your legal dept. to review this analysis To: "DeBell, Michael" <michael.debell@seattleschools.org> cc: schoolboard@seattleschools.org, nrtreat@seattleschools.org, jcerqui@seattleschools.org,
In the third email, I indicated that this was my third and most succinct attempt to outline the legal arguments against the contract. I asked the board to include the email in the board's administrative record, and I asked the Board to have the legal department review my analysis.
I note that as per my request, Director Smith-Blum asked Board secretary Joan Dingfield to see that the 2nd email listed above is included in the adminstrative record for the Board. That means that this email must have formed part of the Board's transcript of evidence for the TFA contract decisions
In reference to the first email listed above, I received an email at 7:45 am on the morning of the vote with this message.: "Thanks Joan, have asked Noel Treat to address. ksb" Noel Treat is a lawyer employed by the District.
As I understand, a district lawyer made three arguments orally before the Board at last night's legislative session.
1. Even if Ms. --- and Ms. ---- are correct, and the contract is therefore in violation of NCLB (due to TFA recruit's not meeting the NCLB's definition of "highly qualified teacher"), it is unlikely that the U.S. Secretary of Education would withhold Title 1 funding for such violation;
2. The U.S. Secretary of Education is expected to appeal the Ninth Circuit Court decision (Renee v. Duncan); if the appeal succeeds, then Ms. ---'s and M. -'s argument that the limited conditional certificate is not a "full state certification" becomes moot, in which case the contract will no longer be in violation of the court's interpretation of Federal Law.
3. The lawyer disagrees in the first place with Ms. --'s' and Ms. ---'s assertion that a Limited Conditional (teaching) Certificate (such as would likely be issued to all TFA recruits) does not meet the state's definition of "fuill state certification."
Given the strength of Ms. ---'s' legal analysis in particular, on the question of whether under state law a limited conditional certificate amounts to full state certification, and the weakness of the District lawyer's counter-argument, we can dismiss the third argument.
We have a situation in which six public officials have knowingly and intentionally decided to make a scoff-law decision.
State law RCW 28A.320.015 is applicable to this situation. (This law is quoted in full below.)
RCW 28A.320.015 says, in effect, that the Board must NOT write policy and exercise their power in a way that conflicts with law.
It appears that in last night's vote on the TFA contract, six public officials have knowingly and intentionally decided to make a decisions that violates state law RCW 28A.320.015. Such behavior is ground for recall. RCW 29A.56.110. [quoted below]
Case law has established that a recall petition lacks legal sufficiency if a public official who violated a state law did so without knowledge and intent. This last-resort basis for dismissing a recall petition will not hold in the present situation for the six directors who voted in favor of the TFA contract.
Quotations of cited state law.
RCW 28A.320.015 School boards of directors — Powers — Notice of adoption of policy.
A. Pertinent Clauses
(1) The board of directors of each school district may exercise the following:
(a) The broad discretionary power to determine and adopt written policies not in conflict with other law ....
(b) Such powers as are expressly authorized by law; and
(c) Such powers as are necessarily or fairly implied in the powers expressly authorized by law.
B. Full Quotation
(1) The board of directors of each school district may exercise the following:
(a) The broad discretionary power to determine and adopt written policies not in conflict with other law that provide for the development and implementation of programs, activities, services, or practices that the board determines will:
(i) Promote the education and daily physical activity of kindergarten through twelfth grade students in the public schools; or
(ii) Promote the effective, efficient, or safe management and operation of the school district;
(b) Such powers as are expressly authorized by law; and
(c) Such powers as are necessarily or fairly implied in the powers expressly authorized by law.
(2) Before adopting a policy under subsection (1)(a) of this section, the school district board of directors shall comply with the notice requirements of the open public meetings act, chapter 42.30 RCW, and shall in addition include in that notice a statement that sets forth or reasonably describes the proposed policy. The board of directors shall provide a reasonable opportunity for public written and oral comment and consideration of the comment by the board of directors.
RCW 29A.56.110 Initiating proceedings — Statement — Contents — Verification — Definitions.
Whenever any legal voter of the state or of any political subdivision thereof, either individually or on behalf of an organization, desires to demand the recall and discharge of any elective public officer of the state or of such political subdivision, as the case may be, under the provisions of sections 33 and 34 of Article 1 of the Constitution, the voter shall prepare a typewritten charge, reciting that such officer, naming him or her and giving the title of the office, has committed an act or acts of malfeasance, or an act or acts of misfeasance while in office, or has violated the oath of office, or has been guilty of any two or more of the acts specified in the Constitution as grounds for recall. The charge shall state the act or acts complained of in concise language, give a detailed description including the approximate date, location, and nature of each act complained of, be signed by the person or persons making the charge, give their respective post office addresses, and be verified under oath that the person or persons believe the charge or charges to be true and have knowledge of the alleged facts upon which the stated grounds for recall are based.
For the purposes of this chapter:
(1) "Misfeasance" or "malfeasance" in office means any wrongful conduct that affects, interrupts, or interferes with the performance of official duty;
(a) Additionally, "misfeasance" in office means the performance of a duty in an improper manner; and
(b) Additionally, "malfeasance" in office means the commission of an unlawful act;
(2) "Violation of the oath of office" means the neglect or knowing failure by an elective public officer to perform faithfully a duty imposed by law.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Opposition to Teach For America coming to Seattle
From: Joan Sias
Date: Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 2:10 PM
Subject: about TFA proposal
To: schoolboard AT seattleschools.org
Cc: Seattle Public Schools Superintendent, Joan Sias
Date: Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 2:10 PM
Subject: about TFA proposal
To: schoolboard AT seattleschools.org
Cc: Seattle Public Schools Superintendent, Joan Sias
Dear Directors,
I have reviewed the Mathematica report that the Superintendent cited in her School Board Aciton Report in which she proposes that SPS enter into a contract with Teach for America.
My conclusion is that any person who holds up this report as evidence that TFA will have a positive impact on the achievement gap in SPS' high poverty schools does not understand this study nor its limitations.
The Superintendent is remiss for failing to inform the Board of the existence of the more recent and more relevant peer-reviewed study published by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice (http://www.greatlakescenter.
By citing this non-peer reviewed Mathematica report, the Superintendent seems to be suggesting that if SPS hires TFA test prep instructors to work in our high poverty schools, we can expect to see similar results as demonstrated in the Mathematica study.
I have several reasons for cautioning the directors from accepting this proposition.
1. This study is not peer reviewed.
This study is paid for by three organizations that have a track record of promoting education reform
- The Smith Richardson Foundation http://www.srf.org/grants/
domestic.php "Education and school reform have been central to the Foundation’s grant making in recent years, including efforts to assess the effectiveness of various school reform initiatives, such as charter schools. - The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation http://www.hewlett.org/
newsroom/12-major-foundations- commit-500-million-to- education-innovation - The Carnegie Corporation
Members of these foundations were allowed to review the report before it was finalized, and may have influenced the final report.
2. This study has a major design flaw.
The study formed two distinct control groups, to which TFA test prep instructors were compared. The control groups both contained sizable proportions of school teaching staff that were not certificated, and did not complete a bachelors or masters degree in education. (statistics from page 28 of the pdf)
- Only 55% of the teachers in the full control group included teachers that possessed at least a bachelor's degree.
- Only 33% of the teachers in the "novice control group" included teachers that possessed at least a bachelor's degree.
- Only 64% of the full control group posseses regular certificates.
- Only 31% of the novice control group possessed regular certificates.
2. The results are weak.
- With the 100 classrooms (from 17 schools) included in the study, TFA test prep instructors have a small statistically significant effect on mean math acheivement, over the single academic year of the student, as measured by ITBS.
- from page 14 of the pdf: "[C]ontrol class students experienced “normal” achievement growth, shown in Figure 2 by a horizontal gray line. In contrast, the average TFA class student increased in rank from the 14th to the 17th percentile over the same period."
- For a graphical representation of the main effects, see Figure 2 on page 14 of the pdf.
- TFA test prep instructors have no statistically significant effect on mean reading achievement, as measured by ITBS.
- Compared to the control group (and which included a high proportion of teachers lacking a bachelors' degrees and regular certificates) TFA test prep instructors appear to cause a large increase in the standard deviation of the reading achievement (c.f., Figure VI.5 on page 52 of the pdf, page 41 of the printed report.
- This means that even though there is no change in mean achievement, a proportion of students are doing better in reading than had they had a control teacher;
- while this would seem a positive benefit, the converse is also true: A proportion of students are showing poorer achievement than had they had a control teacher instead of a TFA test prep instructor. This I find to be an undesirable effect of letting TFA test prep instructors take the place of certified teachers.
- If we were to compare TFA recruits to teachers with at least a bachelors degree and with at least fours years of experience, it is likely that the performance of the TFA recruits would be even more unfavorable.
If the study had compared TFA recruits to certified teachers with at least four years of experience, the very modest effect of TFA test prep instructors on math achievement might well have disappeared:On page 50 of the pdf (page 33 of the report) the report authors present results of additional comparisions. These additional comparisons are more relevant than the major results given in this report.
- The small TFA effect in math was reduced by more than 1/3 (i.e., from 3.1 NCE to 1.9 NCE) when the researchers compared TFA test prep intstructors to certified teachers only;
- The small TFA effect in math was reduced by about 25% percent (from 2.4 NCE to 1.8 NCE) when the 1st year TFA test prep intstructors (rather than all TFA recruits) were compared to the original control group (that control group having a substantial proporiton of underqualified teachers).
3. This study is not very relevant to SPS.
- This study concerned a small number of schools (17) that suffered from strong shortages of qualified applicants for teaching openings. Overall, about 40% of teacher in these schools were veteran teachers (having four or more years of experience), 40% were TFA test prep instructors (with 2 years teaching experience, on average), and about 20% were "novice" teachers. Overall, in these schools, a high proportion of both veteran teachers (45%) and an even higher proportion of novice teachers (67%) lacked a bachelor's degree.
- The small effect of TFA recruits on math acheivement detected in this study would likely be smaller in a schools that have an adequate pool of qualified non-TFA applicatants for teaching staff openings.
This study brings out a major factor that the Board should consider in its decision: The poor retention rate of TFA hires.
- We find this footnote on page 49 of the pdf: " In our sample, there were five TFA teachers in their third year, one in their fifth year, and one in their sixth year. Of the rest, 15 were in their first year of teaching, and 22 were in their second year.
- Thus, we see that in this study, of the 43 TFA test prep instructors included in the study, only 6 were recruits that had chosen to remain working ast test prep instructors beyond the initial two-year commitment period.
Why should a Board Director take into account the retenion rate?
- TFA recruits do not stay employed at the school for as many years as individuals who seek teaching jobs through the normal route.
- When a school has a policy to seek and hire TFA test prep instructors, there is an increaesd probabiity that these problems will also develop:
- increased overall attrition rate of school staff
- long term increase in recruitment and training costs
- decrease in the mean years of experience of teaching staff
- opportunity for students to develop stable, trust-based relationships with school staff that has the potential to continue for many years is diminished
Another look at the data presented in Table VI.2 (page 49 of the pdf):
| Comparison | Effect (expressed as NCE's) |
|---|---|
| ALL TFA's versus uncertified controls | 3.12 |
| All TFA's versus veteral controls: | 2.71 |
| All TFA's versus all controls (only 45% having at least a bachelor's degree) | 2.43 |
| ALL TFA's versus certified controls | 1.92 |
| ALL TFA's versus certified controls with at least three year's experience | ???? (not reported) |
About this this table:
- This table (based on results on page 49 of the pdf) shows that certification matters. The effect of TFA recruits diminishes as the qualifications of the non-TFA staff improve.
- The report does not provide the data that lets us draw a conclusion as to whether certified teachers with experience are more effective than certified teachers with limited experience. (hence the question marks in the last line of this table).
- It stands to reason that the effectiveness of certified teachers will increase as their experience increases.
- The more recent peer-reviewed report by Great Lakes Center Kay http://www.greatlakescenter.
org/docs/Policy_Briefs/Heilig_ TeachForAmerica.pdf indicates that experience is an important factor, and that the last number in the table, if available, would be close to zero.
When TFA recruits are introduced into a system that does not suffer a shortage of qualified applicants, it is likely that i high poverty schools, the proportion of teachers that are both certified and have at least several years of experience will decrease. This will likely lead to poorer outcomes for students at high poverty schools. If it is true that, on average, certified teachers with more experience have the best impact on students, then it behooves the District to try to create policies, programs, and supports that help to make teachers want to continue teaching in these buildings.
In summary,
When SPS hires TFA test prep instructors, they are making a choice against choosing individuals who already have a demonstrated commitment to the teaching profession, or who desire to embark on a professional teaching career, and have a much higher likelihood of remaining in the profession, remaining employees of SPS, and of becoming in the not-too-distant future a member of the corps of certified SPS teachers having at least four years of teaching experience.
SPS does not lack for a pool of qualified non-TFA applicants, many of whom intend to continue to live in this community for the long term, may have already demonstrated through working as a substitute teacher an interest in becoming an SPS teacher, and who may already possess considerable skill at teaching and managing a classroom..
It is hard to understand why SPS would prefer TFA applicants to such persons., especially given that a majority of TFA hires will not remain employed beyond two years, and do not for the most part intend to choose teaching as their profession
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)